I just don't see how it can be that the Packers have ALL the leverage in this situation. This is what I get from the article that agrees with what's been said about the Pack having the leverage over McKenzie: "McKenzie has little leverage. If he sits out the 2004 season, he'd still owe the Packers three years of service. The Packers could wipe away his $2.75 million salary in 2004, but they'd be without their top defender in a season of high hopes. The Packers, who used their top two picks in the draft last month on cornerbacks, taking Ahmad Carroll in the first round and Joey Thomas in the second, have said they hope McKenzie comes around and reports to their June minicamp." So if they don't find someone willing to pony up what they want then McKenzie sits and they do this again next year. Favre isn't exactly getting any younger so their window is definitely closing in a hurry. For a team with title aspirations to just let one of their better defenders sit out a year when they could get something in return for him instead isn't the wisest move in my humble opinion. Now that something they are asking for is supposedly a first plus another pick/player. This is where I'll argue that the Packers DO NOT have all the leverage. Look at it like this. Go back to this year's draft. You're the Buffalo Bills and are trying to trade with the Dallas Cowboys for their 22nd pick so you can grab JP Losman. Is no price too high for you? Well, to the sane GM of course not. There is definitely going to be a price that goes beyond what you are willing to pay. Do you seriously think Buffalo would have given up say their next 2 firsts, 2 seconds a fourth and a fifth for the right to our 22nd? This is where the line is drawn as to how much leverage a team trying to trade a commodity (whether it be draft pick or player) actually has. Of course Green Bay can positively pin themselves to getting that first plus pick/player but how many teams will find that to be an acceptable price for a 28 year old corner who they will have to reward with a new supposedly more lucrative contract than the one that is currently causing him to demand this trade in the first place? I'd venture not many, but again, that's just IMHO. It's at this point my friends that I believe ALL the leverage starts to turn into some leverage, but not as much the team may have originally thought. Anyways, it's the cheeseheads for pete's sake, I hate them so I'm done with Mike and his issues with the Pack. Suffice to say, I wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of the Cowboys trading a first plus another pick/player (unless maybe it was Lynn Scott by chance ) for McKenzie. Actually I might be downright miffed about it, but since when has what I cared about or thought mattered to the FO of the Cowboys right?